Intestinal Absorption of Lipid Emulsion in Premature Infants: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adequate nutritional intake is essential in the very-low-birth-weight infant, but difficult to achieve in the first few postnatal days. Can lipids be given enterally in the first few days of life in sick preterm infants? OBJECTIVE: To determine tolerance and absorption of lipid emulsion when fed enterally to very-low-birth-weight infants. DESIGN/METHODS: Infants had a birth weight <1,500 g, an appropriate weight for gestational age, and were receiving parenteral nutrition. We performed a progressive series of studies, enrolling 5 infants in each group. Group 1 infants were fed enteral lipid emulsion at 1 g/kg/day for 4 days, starting when 60 ml/kg/day of breast milk was tolerated enterally. Simultaneously, a matched control group which received no oral lipid emulsion was enrolled. We then enrolled group 2 infants who were fed 3 g/kg/day with the same protocol as group 1. Group 3 infants were fed enteral lipid emulsion starting in the first 72 h of life. The infants were fed 1, 2 and 3 g/kg/day subsequently for 48 h each. Fat absorption was measured. RESULTS: Gestational age was 24.6-30.8 weeks and birth weight was 620-1,400 g. One infant (group 1) developed necrotizing enterocolitis 1 week after the study. There were no other adverse clinical findings. On average, enteral lipid emulsion was started on day 8 of life in groups 1 and 2, and on day 2 in group 3. The intestinal lipid absorption was 93.6% (min. = 76%). There was no difference in fat absorption between the 4 groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lipid emulsions are an isotonic high-calorie source which can be given safely enterally instead of intravenously in the immediate neonatal period of very-low-birth-weight infants without clinical adverse effects and with almost complete absorption. There are potential advantages to oral administration of a lipid emulsion starting in early life which require further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".